In 1995 an inspector/veterinarian was killed because he discovered fraud with illegal hormones used in cattle … he was a government assigned head of the service that does check cattle in slaughter houses.
The murderer and his accomplice got a 25 year jail sentence in 2002, the accomplice is a well known ‘gangster’ … now the Belgian justice department sent a letter to the veterinarian’s family to ask if they would be against parol/early release.
Jeez, they killed someone and are going to be released after serving four/five years in jail …
Either move to Belgium or be a US army interrogator. The 4-5 years in Belgium is a pretty tough sentence compared to this guy (I know this is year old news, but I just happened to read it yesterday so it was fresh on my mind):
[quote]Jan. 27, 2006 | Earlier this week at Fort Carson in Colorado, the military jury that heard charges of murder against Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer delivered a bold and stunning version of justice – a sentence amounting to a slap on the wrist. Welshofer was on trial for the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush: After Mowhoush’s capture in western Iraq in November 2003, Welshofer, an experienced Army interrogator, bound him and stuffed him in a sleeping bag, and then sat on Mowhoush’s chest in an effort to pry from him information about the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi general suffocated.
…
A primary aspect of Welshofer’s defense was the claim that Welshofer had been operating under confusing guidelines, and that his superiors had been aware of the “claustrophobic” interrogation technique he used. With a verdict of negligent homicide and dereliction of duty against Welshofer, the jury spared him from a more serious murder conviction and life in prison. Even the lesser verdict could have carried a three-year prison sentence. But the jury imposed a sentence that called only for a letter of reprimand, two months’ confinement to post, and forfeiture of $6,000 in pay. In essence, the jury took revenge upon the prosecution for wasting a week of the jurors’ time by bringing a charge that the jury, evidently, felt was not warranted under the circumstances of combat.
[/quote]
[quote=“Vertigo”]Either move to Belgium or be a US army interrogator. The 4-5 years in Belgium is a pretty tough sentence compared to this guy (I know this is year old news, but I just happened to read it yesterday so it was fresh on my mind):
[quote]Jan. 27, 2006 | Earlier this week at Fort Carson in Colorado, the military jury that heard charges of murder against Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer delivered a bold and stunning version of justice – a sentence amounting to a slap on the wrist. Welshofer was on trial for the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush: After Mowhoush’s capture in western Iraq in November 2003, Welshofer, an experienced Army interrogator, bound him and stuffed him in a sleeping bag, and then sat on Mowhoush’s chest in an effort to pry from him information about the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi general suffocated.
…
A primary aspect of Welshofer’s defense was the claim that Welshofer had been operating under confusing guidelines, and that his superiors had been aware of the “claustrophobic” interrogation technique he used. With a verdict of negligent homicide and dereliction of duty against Welshofer, the jury spared him from a more serious murder conviction and life in prison. Even the lesser verdict could have carried a three-year prison sentence. But the jury imposed a sentence that called only for a letter of reprimand, two months’ confinement to post, and forfeiture of $6,000 in pay. In essence, the jury took revenge upon the prosecution for wasting a week of the jurors’ time by bringing a charge that the jury, evidently, felt was not warranted under the circumstances of combat.
[/quote][/quote]
That’s a bit different wouldn’t you think?
Because he did not intend to kill, for a start. And given the phrasing of “his superiors were aware of his technique”, he had presumably done it many times (well, at least a few times) before without killing anyone.
Because he could reasonably claim that his motive was to save the lives of fellow soldiers (by gaining information), as opposed to revenge for cutting into his illegal (and immoral) cow-drugging scheme.
Because, hey, he’s a military interrogator. And in the US, at least, that means that hurting people is his job.
The US guys was probaly charged with manslaughter without the intention to kill no?
Our belgian hitmen killed with prejudice and was recruited for it. Big difference i would say.
I agree that the circumstances of the killings are different. That wasn’t really my point. The thread is titled “Want to kill someone? Do it in Belgium…” to which my original response was “…or become a US army interogator”. That way you can kill someone and claim all of the things you mentioned (whether or not they are true or not) and get off with a slap on the wrist.
[quote]
Because he did not intend to kill, for a start. And given the phrasing of “his superiors were aware of his technique”, he had presumably done it many times (well, at least a few times) before without killing anyone.
Because he could reasonably claim that his motive was to save the lives of fellow soldiers (by gaining information), as opposed to revenge for cutting into his illegal (and immoral) cow-drugging scheme.
Because, hey, he’s a military interrogator. And in the US, at least, that means that hurting people is his job.[/quote]
“My superiors knew of my techniques…therefore I’m not responsible”
“I tortured him to the point of killing him because I wanted to save American lives” (If you believe that, you might also believe the converse: By killing the guy before he got any information out of him, he possibly caused American deaths…? )
“It’s my job”
So are you saying you think the guys punishment was just? I don’t see how killing someone during an interrogation can be justified, even under the guise of “saving American lives”. At what point do you draw the line? He killed only 1 person, but what if he killed 5, 10, or 30 prisoners during the course of interrogations “to save American lives”? Hell, why not take it a step further. We can just pull all of our troops out of Iraq and nuke the whole joint. That would certainly save a lot of American lives…
Fair enough. But since the rest of your most recent post seems to be arguing about the same thing I (mistakenly) was too, let’s get it on!
[quote]- “My superiors knew of my techniques…therefore I’m not responsible”
“I tortured him to the point of killing him because I wanted to save American lives” (If you believe that, you might also believe the converse: By killing the guy before he got any information out of him, he possibly caused American deaths…? )
“It’s my job”[/quote]
We all know where you’re going with this one. Let’s just not.
I think that one is difficult to answer from only the objective stuff we know. We haven’t met the guy, we weren’t at the trial. Three scenarios that spring to mind:
He’s a good guy, moral, conscientious. He genuinely didn’t mean to kill the guy, he feels awful about it, he’ll be a hell of a lot more careful in future.
In this scenario, yes, I’m okay with the punishment. It was an accident that happened while he was trying to do what he feels is right, and which may even be right.
He’s a patriotic (I don’t use that word as a compliment), poorly educated, brainwashed US grunt. He has been known to chant U-S-A, U-S-A, and believes that his country is the best in the world and is going about fixing the rest of it. He didn’t mean to kill the guy, but he doesn’t really feel bad about it - it was just some Iraqi terrorist.
This time I’m not so okay, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that he was given that punishment, because the rest of his country is just as ignorant and crazy.
He’s a bona fide murderer. He wanted to kill the guy. He enjoyed it. He knew he could get away with it under the circumstances. He played the game well.
You’re right, under the circumstances it’s difficult to say what his state of mind and intent was during that interrogation. Here are a few more comments on the subject (not meant to be argumentative towards you in any way).
First off, I think it’s wrong that torture is used during interogations of prisoners. If an American POW in Iraq (or anywhere else) was being tortured, the US would be outraged. Aren’t their rules regarding the fair treatment of prisoners under the Geneva Convention? With that said, given that torture is apparently a method used, as an “experienced interrogator”, he should have known when he was pushing the prisoner too far. As I touched on earlier, if his intent was “to save American lives” by getting information out of him, if he kills the prisoner before he gets any information, I suppose it might be possible that that could cost American lives. Kind of counterproductive, to say the least.
According to the article I linked in my first post, at the end of his trial he said “I deeply apologize if my actions tarnished the soldiers serving in Iraq”. The article doesn’t mention him giving any apologies for killing the prisoner or to the prisoner’s family (which doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t say those things). However, if his only apology was for tarnishing the reputation of soldiers in Iraq, it would seem he falls into scenario two from your post:
[quote]2. He’s a patriotic (I don’t use that word as a compliment), poorly educated, brainwashed US grunt. He has been known to chant U-S-A, U-S-A, and believes that his country is the best in the world and is going about fixing the rest of it. He didn’t mean to kill the guy, but he doesn’t really feel bad about it - it was just some Iraqi terrorist.
This time I’m not so okay, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that he was given that punishment, because the rest of his country is just as ignorant and crazy. [/quote]
Bah, enough about politics, it gives me a headache!
), it seems to me there’s a pretty big moral difference.